[XML] Killer neutrals being part of bonus

[degaston]

Right now, the way the xml is read, it goes,
reinforcements
killer neutrals
bonuses
so what you get is the KN being enacted before bonuses for all maps. If we change it for this suggestion, it will read the xml like this:
reinforcements
bonuses
killer neutrals

Does "reinforcements" refer to the territory count bonus, and "bonuses"refer to continent bonuses?

If that is the case, and if your statement above is correct, then I don't see how this change would affect any map. Reinforcements are already calculated before killer neutrals are reset, and this change would not affect that, so there would be no change in the deploy on any map.

As for the continent bonuses, if anyone had programmed a killer neutral as part of a bonus, then it would never have worked, and I would assume someone would have noticed it by now. If there is a map out there like that, then this change would simply fix the map so that it worked as intended.

[koontz1973]

Right now, the way the xml is read, it goes,
reinforcements
killer neutrals
bonuses
so what you get is the KN being enacted before bonuses for all maps. If we change it for this suggestion, it will read the xml like this:
reinforcements
bonuses
killer neutrals

Does "reinforcements" refer to the territory count bonus, and "bonuses"refer to continent bonuses?

If that is the case, and if your statement above is correct, then I don't see how this change would affect any map. Reinforcements are already calculated before killer neutrals are reset, and this change would not affect that, so there would be no change in the deploy on any map.

As for the continent bonuses, if anyone had programmed a killer neutral as part of a bonus, then it would never have worked, and I would assume someone would have noticed it by now. If there is a map out there likes that, then this change would simply fix the map so that it worked as intended.

Both. Reinforcements and bonuses are seperate but I lumped them together for that list. Somemaps that have a lot of KNs would provide 1 or 2 extra troops but I would not consider that a big chane to any map. This is what kabs wants, allow a bonus with a KN so you always need to grab it.

[degaston]

Sorry, I don't understand your reply. "Both" what? Reinforcements and bonuses are two separate things in that list, with KN's in between them, so how can you say that you lumped them together?

How would KN's provide extra troops if reinforcements are already being calculated before the KN's are being reset?

[chapcrap]

Sorry, I don't understand your reply. "Both" what? Reinforcements and bonuses are two separate things in that list, with KN's in between them, so how can you say that you lumped them together?

How would KN's provide extra troops If reinforcements are already being calculated before the KN's are being reset?

Currently it's:

KN's
reinforcements (troops from territory count)
bonuses

Reinforcements and bonuses are basically the same thing. If you wanted to have this actually be part of bonuses without effecting what koontz and I were talking about earlier, it should be

bonuses
KN's
reinforcements (troops from territory count)

[degaston]

Thanks, that makes more sense. I don't care that much whether KN's are before our after reinforcements. I kind of feel the player has earned the additional bonus, but I can see not wanting to affect the play of established maps.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm in agreement with koontz on this. The only way this would effect existing maps is for adding a small bonus for a larger territory count. This would only greatly effect maps like Salem's Switch and Trench Warfare. And when I say greatly, I meant like 1-2 additional troops at most before having a lot of terts nuked.

This is what nobodies was on about. These maps that have lots of killers on them would provide additional troops before the killer is implemented. But the two maps that have been mentioned above, both would cost more troops to take than what you would yield in a bonus. So GP wise, nothing will change, but as I said, this will need testing a tad more.

Well, I think it would change a little bit, because as of now, you get no additional troops, so opponents have no need or desire to take the KNs from you, but you definitely would have a bigger (not a lot) desire to hit some of them if they were yielding a bonus. I think it does change GP a little, but not enough for me to care about. The maps should all still be fine as is, IMO.

I would want explicit Foundry support before changing the gameplay of existing maps.

[koontz1973]

I am talking to nobodies right now over skype, I will get him to pop in here and let you all know what he wants to see happen. But I can say that he would not want this to effect any current map, hence his previous post. This needs to be done so that maps like Salams Switch can keep the killer neutrals in place without causing trouble. Saying that, I would be happy to see a slight change in some maps.

[chapcrap]

I am talking to nobodies right now over skype, I will get him to pop in here and let you all know what he wants to see happen. But I can say that he would not want this to effect any current map, hence his previous post. This needs to be done so that maps like Salams Switch can keep the killer neutrals in place without causing trouble. Saying that, I would be happy to see a slight change in some maps.

Then the order could be

bonuses
KNs
reinforcements

Correct?

[spiesr]

Then the order could be

bonuses
KNs
reinforcements

Correct?

Is it actually possible to do it like that?

[chapcrap]

Then the order could be

bonuses
KNs
reinforcements

Correct?

Is it actually possible to do it like that?

I have, literally, no idea.

[koontz1973]

Guys, as all meetings with nobodies, it ran late. Here is the foundries position on this.

We really want this to happen. In fact, this is a great idea and we all 100% throw our blue shoes behind it.

But, and we always have a but

this cannot affect any maps already in play. that would be considered a huge problem for nobodies and after his very long explanation last night, I agree with him even if it means only affecting 1 or 2 maps in a slight way.

The solution seems to of been hit upon already here with the xml reading going like what chap said.

bonuses
killer neutrals
reinforcements

If that can be done, it seems to be the best way forward as it does not hit upon any existing map and should be easy enough to have on all new maps without the second type.

The second solution would be to have a second style of killer neutral (from this point on, I am going to call this one a Bonus Killer (BKN). The BKN would be a new type of killer neutral and placed into the xml code after bonuses. So we would end up with two types of killer neutrals. both would do the same job but one would be read before bonuses, the other after. Most map makers would not need to tell the difference on the map so would not cause any problem there. What would probably happen is that most map makers would move over to the new BKN and only use the old style KN for long pathways like on trench warfair and salams switch.

The pros for both of these is that it saves the integrity of all older maps. The added extra with the BKN is it gives map makers a new tool and one that we can use.

So from a foundry perspective, re submit this please and let bW have the final say on how it gets done. Both solutions have potential but it is depending on the limits of what can be done with the xml reading and/or bigWhams coding ability.

[thenobodies80]

But I can say that he would not want this to effect any current map, hence his previous post.

This.
If current maps don't change this one can be coded and applied tomorrow from my point of view.

But with "don't change" I mean that I don't care if it will be a small change or a big one (i have more than one reason to say this, I could explain but i do not want to derail the discussion).

The best way to implement XML updates is to allow something new without change what is already there.
Don't touch what is not broken, specially because there're plenty ways. (see bonus collections for reference )

[Kabanellas]

The solution seems to of been hit upon already here with the xml reading going like what chap said.

bonuses
killer neutrals
reinforcements

Hope this is feasible!

[spiesr]

Where do Winning & Losing Conditions fit in?

[thenobodies80]

Things are in the exact order they are printed in the game log.
Killer neutrals come first, before winning conditions.
Losing conditions are checked each time a player take/lose a territory.

[Metsfanmax]

Things are in the exact order they are printed in the game log.
Killer neutrals come first, before winning conditions.
Losing conditions are checked each time a player take/lose a territory.

Since it was brought up: why aren't winning conditions the first thing that is checked?

[degaston]

It looks like the safest way to do this is to add another option to the <neutral> tag. Territories coded without the new option (including all existing maps) would use the current processing order. The new option could be:

bonus="yes" - If the territory is held by the player at the start of his turn, then it will be included in the calculations for continents and winning conditions before being reset to the neutral value.

This does not specifically address the issue of reinforcements. It could be assumed that if a killer neutral is not part of any bonus, but has the bonus tag, then it should be counted as another region held when calculating reinforcements. But if it is part of a bonus, then the mapmaker may, or may not want the region to be counted for reinforcements, so it might also be appropriate to add another option:

region="yes" - If the territory is held by the player at the start of his turn, then it will be included in the reinforcement calculation before being reset to the neutral value.

This should cover all of the features being discussed, would not affect any existing map, and would leave open the possibility of future enhancements. The tag format would then be:

<neutral killer="yes" bonus="yes" region="yes" >#</neutral>

[thenobodies80]

Things are in the exact order they are printed in the game log.
Killer neutrals come first, before winning conditions.
Losing conditions are checked each time a player take/lose a territory.

Since it was brought up: why aren't winning conditions the first thing that is checked?

you should ask to Lack. It was before my time as FF. But i think the concept applied was that a killer neutral is a region that you can't hold at all, so it is before anything else.

[Metsfanmax]

Things are in the exact order they are printed in the game log.
Killer neutrals come first, before winning conditions.
Losing conditions are checked each time a player take/lose a territory.

Since it was brought up: why aren't winning conditions the first thing that is checked?

you should ask to Lack. It was before my time as FF. But i think the concept applied was that a killer neutral is a region that you can't hold at all, so it is before anything else.

It precludes an interesting gameplay option though: what if a mapmaker wants holding a KN (or a region including a KN) to be part of a winning condition?

[koontz1973]

Things are in the exact order they are printed in the game log.
Killer neutrals come first, before winning conditions.
Losing conditions are checked each time a player take/lose a territory.

Since it was brought up: why aren't winning conditions the first thing that is checked?

you should ask to Lack. It was before my time as FF. But i think the concept applied was that a killer neutral is a region that you can't hold at all, so it is before anything else.

It precludes an interesting gameplay option though: what if a mapmaker wants holding a KN (or a region including a KN) to be part of a winning condition?

And this is why we want to get the change done. After the change around or getting the new type of neutral, having the winning condition hold a killer will be possible. So just by moving the sequence around or introducing a new type of neutral, we get a lot of new options to play with.

[Kabanellas]

..and what now?

[chapcrap]

..and what now?

Can you update the OP with the relevant information on the correct order to sequence things to make this work?

[Kabanellas]

Ok.. If I remember well we’re stuck in 2 possible choices:

-change the XML sequence to read the game in this order:

bonuses
killer neutrals
reinforcements

-add new features to the neutral tag (as suggested by degaston) enabling the map maker to control key attributes of ‘killer neutral’ regions:

Bonus (being part of bonuses ‘yes or no’)
Region (being part of region count ‘yes or no’)

Previous map MUST NOT be affected by this change whatsoever

[degaston]

I vote for whichever one can be implemented the soonest.

[koontz1973]

First one can be done the quickest from what I have read but it must not effect any older map. It will not but it needs testing to make sure current maps are not compromised.